April 16, 2012

"Through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities — through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community — that's how we advance the common good," Ryan said.

NPR gets a counterpoint from a polisci prof at Catholic University:

But Stephen Schneck... says he thinks Ryan is "completely missing the boat and not understanding the real heart, the real core, of Catholic social teaching."

Schneck says Catholicism sees everyone as part of a mystical body, serving one another. True, the New Testament does not specifically speak to the government's role. "But charities and individuals and churches can't do it all," Schneck says. "When charities are already stretched to their limit, Catholic social teaching expects the state to step up and to fill that gap."

I'm no expert on Catholic doctrine, but it seems to me that the key difference is whether you want individuals and relatively small associations of individuals to experience the inward motivations and choices to be charitable in giving and ministering to others, or whether you want a rational, overarching system that determines what everyone must give and what everyone ought to receive. In the second view, you care more about meeting all the needs, and you don't depend on the various individuals deciding to be good. In the first view, the needs create opportunities and tests for everyone to notice and to care enough to do something, to give. If you set up a governmental structure to deal with those needs, then everyone can move on and assume needs are being met, the experts will tweak the structure and get the taxing and spending something reasonably close to right.

Jesus's human form was a subject of the Roman Empire, whose government held immense power over it's subjects. Jesus spent a good deal of his time talking to authority figures. He also spent a good deal of time telling people how they should relate to each other and meet their needs. Yet all I ever see Him saying on the topic was to tell people to take care of each other. If Jesus thought that government should take up the task of caring for people and meeting their needs, how come he never said so? The Roman Empire was certainly powerful enough. It collected taxes, and it's authority (at least where He lived) was absolute. It wouldn't have to had to put such a thing to a vote. But even when He was directly questioned by a representative of the Empire who was ready to send Him to his death, and even when authority figures asked him about paying taxes, He never said such a thing.

So when leftists (most of whom don't go to church) try to tell you how Jesus would have approved and pushed for the modern welfare state, point out to them that He never did such a thing when he had the chance and ask them to show you where He did.

The Lefties want you to believe "Render unto Caesar" means let the government do it and give them what they want in order to do it, but a closer look indicates Christ wanted us to do it out of the goodness of our hearts as much one to one as possible.

I don't know His political affiliation, but He probably votes the man.

I think Jesus wants us to choose for ourselves, and then act upon those choices and accept the consequences. You can't do that without political freedom, so to that extent Jesus might be political. So, by that description He must be conservative?

Charity is a two-way street. The person who receives charity knows where the charity comes from...and should be grateful. If the person receiving charity misuses that charity, the charity will be withdrawn.

There is no real connection between the person getting government benefits and the people paying for it. The person getting government benefits may misuse those all he wants. There's no penalty or threat that the benefits will be withdrawn.

There's an excellent chance that Paul Ryan will be Romney's VP choice. I expect to see more articles analyzing how Ryan completely misunderstands all the the tenets of Christianity and how his true beliefs are more far more typical of Fascism than Catholicism. Investigatve journalists will look up his college girls friends and reveal that this smarmy hypocrite sometimes used condoms in violation of Church rules.

It's the addressing that for the first time makes you you, unique and irreplaceable.

Which is what corresponds to being saved.

The government version has no moral value. If anything, it's to keep you from being addressed at all, a moral call that's too much for the left to deal with. The government is there to prevent it from happening.

I take no responsiblity for the idiot Catholic version of this. They like power too much.

For Augustine, charity was thinking the best of somebody instead of the worst. That also has saving power, which is always what's lost in the modern institutional versions.

Is catholic social teaching dependent on the whole cloth of catholic teaching?

Like, "government should provide social security and health care"

But Catholics "beleive" in large families and no birth control, so a growing population. So when the population is not adequately growing to PAY for all the social insurances, is there still a teaching the the government must stay the course?

I thought that the N T was clear that charity was a matter of personal intent. Or else why praise the widow who gives 2 mites? No way her mites did anyone any actual good, after all. What was important was that she did what she could.

Also, complaining that churches are short of funds in this economy so that government must do more willfully ignores that all of the money comes from the exact same place. Out of the same pool. An actual legitimate case of a single pie.

Even in booming economies rational people understand that when they've paid their taxes they've done their shave, if they wanted to or not.

Seems to me the PoliSci guy is the one mssing the point. I'm not Catholic, or religious, but I suspect the underlying logic is this.

Voluntary Charitable giving does two things.

1. it rescues the bodies of the needy, thus affirming the Church's respect for life in all facets

2. it (helps) rescue(s) the souls of the givers. Making charity into taxes through government defeats the second facet of giving. The giver must recognize the need, feel with the needy, and make a personal sacrafice. That it must be voluntary to save souls.

"But charities and individuals and churches can't do it all," Schneck says. "When charities are already stretched to their limit, Catholic social teaching expects the state to step up and to fill that gap."

In other words, the church and the body of Christ are insufficient.

A clear statement of lack of faith in God and Christ if I ever read one.

Being unable to elevate through preaching, the faith and conscience of the people to care for the poor voluntarily, his next try is to use the absolute power of the state to enforce righteousness.

(Well, upon further thought as I type, I guess that is what the Catholic Church has been doing for many previous hundreds of years.)

I would think Jesus would want charity to come from the heart, and not from the sword. That's for a different religion.

I also think Jesus would like people to experience the uplifting feeling of really helping others, not merely being forced to provide money to a faceless bureaucracy that has never helped people to become self sustaining. Not to mention, the one size fits all approach certainly doesn't.

In any event, Ann, perhaps you think Christians who are forced to give money consumed by others will pave the ways to the pearly gates, or should. I don't see it that way. So in my view, government has a hand in destroying compassion.

I don't think we should outsource our charitable impulses to the government. Virtue isn't truly virtuous unless it is freely chosen. Government programs give people the illusion that they are acting virtuously, when all they're really doing in spending other people's money rather than their own.

That Jesus was a socialist is dogma for liberation theologists and many American Catholics.

Its origin is the same poisonous soup of utopian collectivism that afflicted the entire world from the 1800s through the present day.

But in 1891, Pope Leo XIII severely criticized Western market systems, but condemned socialism as futile and unjust.

"The Socialists … in endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community, strike at the interests of every wage earner, for they deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thus of all hope and possibility of increasing his stock and of bettering his conditions in life.

What is of still greater importance, however, is that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice, for every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation.

The Socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and introducing the providence of the State, act against natural justice, and threaten the very existence of family life. And such interference is not only unjust but is quite certain to harass and disturb all classes of citizens and to subject them to odious and intolerable slavery.

It would open the door to envy, to evilspeaking, and to quarreling; the sources of wealth would themselves run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or industry; and that ideal equality of which so much is said would, in reality, be the leveling down of all to the same condition of misery and dishonor.

Thus it is clear that the main tenet of Socialism, the community of goods, must be utterly rejected; for it would injure those whom it is intended to benefit, it would be contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and it would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth."

I'm not Catholic, so I can't speak to what Catholic Social teaching is, however it seems to me that the polisci prof is imposing upon the New Testament teaching his own political assumptions (is there any doubt which way he votes).

That being said, there is an important issue at hand here with general Christian teaching on social issues in comparison to other religions.

For some approaches, the emphasis on social involvement is on the giver, whether the giver be the system or the person, charity reflects upon those that give and gives them a spiritual boost. The poor, then, serve a function in society as a target for the beneficence of the religious wealthy.

I would argue that this is how much politically liberal approaches to government work. The priority is on sustaining the government in its power as a source of help. Whether or not, or how much, the poor are actually helped is a secondary matter. What matters is securing the societal role of government as benefactor, thus securing positions and power for those who may genuinely find their own identity through their identity as a person who helps others. Again, though, this emphasis is egocentric, focusing on the giver.

In Christian terms, I would argue, the emphasis is not on the giver but on the recipient. Here we have the example of Acts 3:1-9, where a lame man was functioning in a role where he and the religious both would gain through the perpetuation of his handicap. The question at hand is not who helps or how, but if the person is actually helped - are their needs genuinely being met so that they no longer have those same needs.

Inasmuch as a person is thus helped by the government, I think there is definitely a role for government.

However, in our contexts, and historically, the role of government as the primary caregiver is so susceptible to corruption that this should never, and can never, be a wholly Christian answer, as corruption always will then perpetuate the very needs which it may nominally be addressing.

The poor, when government is in charge, must be kept poor in order to sustain the role of government in helping the poor. Charity becomes a path to power, in which the needy and the wealthy play set roles. Now a man who was lame from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts.

The Christian social ethic is to give water to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to, in general, provide substantive help in particular situations. This ethic is about, in essence, responsibility, not passing off responsibility to others.

This is where there is an overlap of liberal and conservative responses to government and why, I think, both are needed to help orient a path that argues for both government involvement in coordination with each person's responsibility to help and to receive help in a way that leads out of the crisis.

Instead of asking "who helps", the Christian, I think, needs to ask "are they helped?"

Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.”

"To remedy these evils, the Socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, endeavor to destroy private property, and maintain that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies.

They hold that, by thus transferring property from private persons to the community, the present evil state of things will be set to rights, because each citizen will then have his equal share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their proposals are so clearly futile, for all practical purposes, that if they were carried out the working man himself would be among the first to suffer.

Moreover, they are emphatically unjust, because they would rob the lawful possessor, bring the State into a sphere that is not its own, and cause complete confusion in the community"

I can't do it, I can't make that leap to think of myself as part of the "mystical body" that includes Mike Tyson. I'm just not that stupid, lefty professor. But many are, as you well know, you horrible con artist.

"Schneck says Catholicism sees everyone as part of a mystical body, serving one another." The Church sees its members as part of the mystical body of Christ. Schneck's statement is just confused hand waving.

What is it someone said about "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"? That seems to be lost on the liberals. Handout mentality makes them feel good in the moment.

American greatness can only be maintained (or restored if you with) with the participation of the federal government. There are essential functions of government that cannot be replaced by private industry or charity. The push toward small government comes at the expense of the greatness of the United States of America.

An essential difference between private charity and government "charity" is that private charity often makes demands on the recipients, yet government "charity" is often an entitlement.

Thus, if you want to stay at a Salvation Army homeless shelter you not only must listen respectfully to the preaching, but you must remain drug and alcohol free, you must keep your personal space clean and tidy, and often you will be asked to do odd jobs around the Shelter.

In the government-run homeless shelter, nothing is asked of you except perhaps that you try real hard to refrain from violence.

If I were down-and-out, I'd far prefer to sleep in a Salvation Army shelter.

"give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"?

But Christ's seems to point to a way even higher than that.

His example seems to suggest:

"When you need money, find a fish and you can get a coin out of his mouth, so let's all stop fixating on cash and get out there and take care of people in all ways with our whole heart, not just by throwing a money at them."

Aside from that, government "charity" tends to crowd out private charity- once you know that government is taking care of something (however badly) and realize that you're being taxed to pay for it, you tend to develop an "I gave at the office" attitude toward private providers.

Pope John Paul II, like Leo, criticized both socialism and capitalism:

The Catholic Church "has always refused and still refuses today to make the market the supreme regulator or almost the model or synthesis of social life."

Besides, Catholic social doctrine is not a surrogate for capitalism. In fact, although decisively condemning “socialism,” the church, since Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, has always distanced itself from capitalistic ideology, holding it responsible for grave social injustices (cf. Rerum Novarum, 2). In Quadragesimo Anno Pius XI, for his part, used clear and strong words to stigmatize the international imperialism of money (Quadragesimo Anno, 109).

This line is also confirmed in the more recent magisterium, and I myself, after the historical failure of communism, did not hesitate to raise serious doubts on the validity of capitalism, if by this expression one means not simply the “market economy” but “a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality” (Centesimus Annus, 42)."

That is, it's very complicated, and NPR and their spokesmaodel for Christian socialism are wrong. .

It's my experience that smaller associations rise to the occasion when necessary.

I grew up on a farm just outside of a town that had a population of about 1200 people. My Dad died of cancer in 1987, just before the fall harvest. I had already graduated college and took a job that required me to move to the east coast from the midwest. When I came back for the funeral, I was prepared to resign my job and move back to complete the harvest. But several local farmers voluntarily approached our family and gave their word they'd make sure the crop was harvested. They honored their word and never asked for a penny in return.

A couple of years before my father's death -- before he knew he was sick -- he installed a big wood burning furnace in the basement. He'd go to the woods to cut and split wood with a small group of others who also relied on wood heat. A couple of guys would run the chain saws, a couple of others would run the hydraulic splitters, and a couple more would load the split wood into the pickups. After my dad died, for the next two years until my mother found a more suitable place to live, they made sure my mother had plenty of wood to stay warm. Again, total charity on their part.

Fast forward 22 years. One of those farmers who had come to my mother's aid died in Sept., 2009. He had a decent sized dairy operation, with a couple of employees who probably could have handled things. But the community came together and made sure the cows were milked, fed, and cared for until the widow could make whatever arrangements she needed to. The farmer also had a row crop operation, and they made sure the corn and soybeans were harvested as well.

My niece continues to live in the community with her husband. After she gave birth to quads, the outpouring from the community was amazing. She had a bedroom in her house literally crammed full, mostly with diapers, but also clothing, blankets, and all types of baby paraphernalia voluntarily contributed by the community. Someone even sent them 5 $100 bills anonymously.

I can't tell you how often over the years they have held fundraisers for someone whose house accidentally burned, or someone who is out of work because of illness or accident. It's just what they do. It's the norm, not the exception.

This kind of charity is alive and well in many small, rural communities where everyone knows everyone. I doubt it works in today's highly mobile society where people often don't put down secure roots and may not even know their next door neighbor.

Polisci prof? Couldn't NPR find a religion prof at Catholic University to comment on Catholic faith?

Why don't you do a quick search before questioning who NPR chose to interview? Because when you find out who Schenk is you look like an idiot.

"Appointed as Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies in 2005, Stephen F. Schneck comes to the Institute from an academic career in political science. He served as chair of the Department of Politics at The Catholic University of America for nine years and as Associate Professor in that department for fourteen years. . . .[R]ecent work has focused on the role of religion in democracy. "

His politics dictate his Catholicism, rather than the Catholic faith informing his politics. He, and many "progressive Catholics" like him (go over to the dotcommonweal blog for daily examples) constantly twist and distort and misrepresent and misapply Church teachings to justify their leftist ideology.

Simply because Schneck teaches at CUA is no guarantee of his bona fides. Charlie Curran taught there for years.

Stephen Schneck --In truth, nothing in Catholic social teachings, including the ethic of subsidiarity, requires that America’s moral responsibility to the care for the unborn, the poor, or other vulnerable populations be addressed at one or another level, whether by national government, state governments, private enterprise, voluntary associations, or anything else.

Again, Schneck concedes, in his own words, that, in truth, nothing in Catholic social teachings requires that America’s moral responsibility be addressed by national government [or] state governments.

In other words, those who say that the U.S. federal government is not the answer does NOT violate Catholic social teaching. Such that, a congressman (or Speaker of the House, since Schneck similarly engaged in a partisan attack on Boehner when he came to speak at CUA) does NOT act contrary to Catholic social teaching to suggest that public assistance is best served at state or local level, or better yet, at the level of the individual (c.f. Caritas in Veritate 11, 34, 53; Deus Caritas Est 28 et seq.).

Schneck is not a sociologist, he is not a theologian. He is a political science professor who is actively engaged in Democrat Party politics. Moreover, in recent years he has become an insufferable self-promoter, holding himself out to be an authority on things he knows little about (e.g. Catholic social doctrine).

I'm Catholic and while not up on every aspect of the religion, I do know that rendering taxes to the gov't does not replace a person's personal responsibility to help their fellow man. Nor does advocating for higher taxes and more gov't programs mean that a Catholic has lived up their their personal responsibility to help others.

Taking from other people is not a valid form of charitible contribution in any sense of the word.

Why did NPR talk to Schneck? I mean, guys, it ain't that difficult to find a Catholic theologian or high clergyman that's sympathetic to the Social Gospel. It's almost default setting.

And then Bender said that piece about "self-promotion" and it hit me --- NPR based its story around a press release by Schneck on the subject of Ryan's budget! The whole story smells of press release journalism.

The essence of a moral action is the exercise of the will to perform a good deed. Charity is a moral act when it is voluntary. Forced contribution through the government is not charity. There is no moral quality to mandatory giving.

Taking from other people is not a valid form of charitible contribution in any sense of the word.

You're completely missing the point. The point is that the Catholic Church believes that both the church and state are responsible for ensuring that the least among us does not suffer unduly because of the vagaries of capitalism.

This is a longstanding Catholic Doctrine. Paul Ryan is simply an idiot, and if he is Catholic, a bad one.

The point is that the Catholic Church believes that both the church and state are responsible for ensuring that the least among us does not suffer unduly because of the vagaries of capitalism.

What Trashhauler said.

You, too, miss the point. A Catholic, as part of a multi-religious polity has a moral obligation to pay taxes to that polity. But that moral & legal obligation is not one of charity! The State must be supported in all its functions, e.g. defense, charitable welfare, etc.

Here's a question to any non-Catholic who supports the Social Gospel: Why is it licit to use moral obligations derived from revelation in support of State-enforced charity, but illicit to use that same system of revelation to oppose legal abortion?

If religion should stay out of politics, it should stay of politics. Right?

But Ann, you did say a "rational" system. In what way is the federal government rational? You would have to assume that all of its multitude of agencies are benevolent, efficient and effective in deciding how to use the money allotted. And you would have to assume that there is sufficient oversight of the budget, and that all of the players are wise and humble and diligent and forward thinking and not at all self-seeking, and... and... and... As one fellow put it, today I sent in my much larger than usual check to the United States Government without knowing where it will go or how much good or harm it will do.

His political party espouses a flexible brand of "Christian" theology that has no problem embracing the so-called prosperity gospels.

It is not surprising, then, that this feral political opportunist would turn the philosophers of the centuries on their heads in service of tax cuts for his wealthy benefactors, and increased debt service for future generations.

"1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7"

So, in short (and not surprisingly), Schenck and Frederson have it exactly backwards; Ryan is correct, after all.

"It is not surprising, then, that this feral political opportunist would turn the philosophers of the centuries on their heads in service of tax cuts for his wealthy benefactors, and increased debt service for future generations."

No, not surprising at all. Centralized government, in command of all that is known and imaginable, is their God.

This is the authoritative Catholic teaching --Caritas in veritate1. Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity. . . .

2. Charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine. Every responsibility and every commitment spelt out by that doctrine is derived from charity which, according to the teaching of Jesus, is the synthesis of the entire Law (cf. Mt 22:36-40). . . .

The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States.” She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation [to love in truth]. . . .

11. Man does not develop through his own powers, nor can development simply be handed to him. In the course of history, it was often maintained that the creation of institutions was sufficient to guarantee the fulfilment of humanity's right to development. Unfortunately, too much confidence was placed in those institutions, as if they were able to deliver the desired objective automatically. In reality, institutions by themselves are not enough, because integral human development is primarily a vocation*, and therefore it involves a free assumption of responsibility in solidarity on the part of everyone. Moreover, such development requires a transcendent vision of the person, it needs God: without him, development is either denied, or entrusted exclusively to man, who falls into the trap of thinking he can bring about his own salvation, and ends up promoting a dehumanized form of development. . . .

16. To regard development as a vocation is to recognize, on the one hand, that it derives from a transcendent call, and on the other hand that it is incapable, on its own, of supplying its ultimate meaning. . . .

17. A vocation is a call that requires a free and responsible answer. Integral human development presupposes the responsible freedom of the individual and of peoples: no structure can guarantee this development over and above human responsibility. . . . Paul VI had a keen sense of the importance of economic structures and institutions, but he had an equally clear sense of their nature as instruments of human freedom. Only when it is free can development be integrally human; only in a climate of responsible freedom can it grow in a satisfactory manner.

18. Besides requiring freedom, integral human development as a vocation also demands respect for its truth.

*Catholic teaching has always recognized that the universal "vocation" of every person is to love one another in truth.

The government version has no moral value. If anything, it's to keep you from being addressed at all, a moral call that's too much for the left to deal with. The government is there to prevent it from happening.

Which is why Political Correctness is inherently evil. It canvasses language, thought, and intent as a moraless abstract that carries little to no value. In effect it devalues that which it claims it tries to help, us. And in doing so devalues us and when we are devalued, we are in effect no better than cattle to be herded where they tell us to go.

34. Charity in truth places man before the astonishing experience of gift. . . . The human being is made for gift . . .

38. Solidarity is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone, and it cannot therefore be merely delegated to the State. While in the past it was possible to argue that justice had to come first and gratuitousness could follow afterwards, as a complement, today it is clear that without gratuitousness, there can be no justice in the first place. What is needed, therefore, is a market that permits the free operation, in conditions of equal opportunity, of enterprises in pursuit of different institutional ends. Alongside profit-oriented private enterprise and the various types of public enterprise, there must be room for commercial entities based on mutualist principles and pursuing social ends to take root and express themselves. It is from their reciprocal encounter in the marketplace that one may expect hybrid forms of commercial behaviour to emerge, and hence an attentiveness to ways of civilizing the economy. . . .

57. A particular manifestation of charity and a guiding criterion for fraternal cooperation between believers and non-believers is undoubtedly the principle of subsidiarity, an expression of inalienable human freedom. Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects personal dignity . . .

In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. . . .

58. The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need. . . .

In addition, there is this from Pope Benedict in Deus Caritas Est, concerning the role of government --

28. Love—caritas—will always prove necessary, even in the most just society. There is no ordering of the State so just that it can eliminate the need for a service of love. Whoever wants to eliminate love is preparing to eliminate man as such. There will always be suffering which cries out for consolation and help. There will always be loneliness. There will always be situations of material need where help in the form of concrete love of neighbour is indispensable.[20] The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need.

"[T]he principle of subsidiarity, according to which 'a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order...'"

So, the principle of subdiarity evokes a kind of spiritual federalism, in which the higher authority does not interfere with the moral efforts of lower echelons of religious or social organizations. This would be in keeping with the idea that moral actions must be voluntary, that an involuntary mandate does not support the development of a vocation of charity.

American greatness can only be maintained (or restored if you with) with the participation of the federal government. There are essential functions of government that cannot be replaced by private industry or charity. The push toward small government comes at the expense of the greatness of the United States of America.

So America is the greatest it's ever been right now?

Because the government is the biggest it's ever been in peace times now.

"The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need."

Awesome, thanks for quoting this. It looks like, once again, the Catholic Church has got itself a Pope that can really pope.

BTW, has Ryan released a tax form lately? I just wondered how much his charitable deduction was.

Would it matter?

You're on board with noted skinflint Biden and long-term charitable non-entities the Obamas (who only started giving to charity very recently, in spite of having a lot of money).

Lyin' Ryan's intellectual guru is Ayn Rand, an unabashed atheist.

...and? I'm not sure how this is relevant. Are you saying the faithful cannot gain any enlightenment from atheists?

It is not surprising, then, that this feral political opportunist would turn the philosophers of the centuries on their heads in service of tax cuts for his wealthy benefactors, and increased debt service for future generations.

Where, exactly, do you think your preferred choices lead us to? A lack of debt?

The polisci professor has a point: Catholic Social Teaching--including the principle of subsidiarity--does, indeed, recognize that at some point, government must act where private actors cannot meet a need.

But Rep. Ryan--who I hope doesn't get sidelined into the veep position--has a point when he emphasizes subsidiarity; because Catholic Social Teaching, including the principle of subsidiarity, do take into account how society, and times, change.

So how these principles work out is certainly different in, say, the 19th century and the 21st; and in a culture where most people are powerless and dispossessed, versus most people being remarkably empowered.

Our society--21st century USA--is a world in which the ordinary person is remarkably empowered; a world in which non-government actors are richer in resources, and enabled with knowledge and technology, to meet human needs as never before.

In short, the principle of subsidiarity is coming into its own. This is a point that presumably non-Catholic Glenn Reynolds might make in a different way with his "Army of Davids" theme.

This connects to a point that Blessed John Paul II made in Centesimus Annus: that the social-assistance state can actually impede social progress.

I understand skepticism about what Mr. Ryan's motives may be in making his argument; but even if he is being cynical, he may, nevertheless, have spoken the truth.

Downsizing government may well clear the way for a real flowering of private social improvement. And again, that may seem absurd to propose in past ages, but in our world? Not so absurd at all.

And, look at it this way: with government racing to plunge off the fiscal cliff, we may--before we know it--have no alternative.

Catholic Social Teaching--including the principle of subsidiarity--does, indeed, recognize that at some point, government must act where private actors cannot meet a need

Respectfully, Father, I am going to tweek this a bit to remove the ambiguity and avoid misconstruing things --

There is no obligation for government "to act" per se whenver there is a need. Rather, any obligation here is for government to act justly, to act fairly, to act in a manner consistent with the freedom and truth of the human person.

And there is a whole wide range of possible actions that the government might take that is consistent with the promotion of social justice -- the Church does not teach that one size fits all and does not mandate one particular political-economic ideology -- and included within this range of appropriate government actions to help those in need is NOT taking money from employers and NOT imposing regulations that impede business and hiring of people and, instead, getting out of the way to allow the freedom of individuals and the freedom of associations of individuals, including various insttitutions, including the Church, to provide such assistance as a matter of caritas in veritate, charity in truth, i.e. love in truth.

And love, to be truly love, must be freely and voluntarily engaged in, it must be a matter of "gift," as said in Caritas in Veritate.

The government that acts in any manner that it pleases to meet a need is the same government that displaces and usurps the Church in providing adoptions and in educating children and in providing healthcare to those in need. Moreover, the government that acts in any manner that it pleases to meet a need is also the same government that tells the Church it must provide contraceptives to its employees who "need" them.

The point is that nowhere in the Gospels will you find Jesus going over to Pilate demanding that the Roman government provide more jobs and bread and medical care, nowhere did He say that it was morally unjust for Pilate to not take more in taxes.

At no time did He say to Matthew, "Matt, stay where you are, you are doing God's work collecting taxes from people." Rather, He said to the tax collector, "follow me."

The obligation of social doctrine is at root a vocation, an obligation of the individual person to love others in truth as Jesus has loved us, and not a vocation of the individual to demand that Caesar do all of these things.

Well, perhaps; but I think Aquinas (drawing from Augustine and the Greeks) has a better argument: all things participate in goodness, whether they like it or not.

Rand has many flaws, but that doesn't prevent her from telling the truth about things. The same can be said of Richard Dawkins, that fellow in Iran whose name I can't spell, and pretty much anyone you can name.

Well it better happen fast Father because the State of Illinois has put the Catholic Church out of the adoption business and is looking closely at its orphanages. Two charities that the church has had outstanding success with here.Good schools too.BTW.

Where, exactly, do you think your preferred choices lead us to? A lack of debt?

My preferred choice is letting the Bush tax cuts expire (which can be achieved if Congress simply does nothing) and eliminating (or at least reducing) the rate differential between capital gains and earned income.

That would put a serious hurt on the deficit. Ryan's budget doesn't even lower the deficit.

"My preferred choice is letting the Bush tax cuts expire (which can be achieved if Congress simply does nothing) and eliminating (or at least reducing) the rate differential between capital gains and earned income.

That would put a serious hurt on the deficit. Ryan's budget doesn't even lower the deficit."

Actually, they are now the Obama Tax Cuts, as he signed the extension into law.

You probably missed the extended drama over that bit of political theater.

Anyway, yes, if a 1/300th decrease in the deficit equals "a serious hurt on the deficit." Otherwise, Freder boy, your sense of scale and proportion are just as awful as your reading comprehension.

Freder -- forget about Ryan. He really is not the issue. The extent of government in people's lives is the issue.

And, you are right -- Ryan's budget plan is pathetically weak and ineffectual. It is also intellecutally dishonest (as is any ten-year or other multi-year plan) in claiming "cuts" that are not cuts at all, but are only lesser increases. It is also a gross repudiation of the promise to go back to FY2008 spending levels.

But for all of you cheering on Romney as the savior of us all, such continued spending as Ryan plans is what you can expect. What we need is a chainsaw wielding maniac and instead we get Ryan using a butter knife on the budget.

Government has indicated that it is not the solution to our problems. Rather, government is the problem.

To summarize, we can be certain that charity and government solicitude are not synonymous. That there can be a nexus between charity and government action, but that a government mandate is antithetical to the development of a vocation to charity. That we should encourage good government, despite its flaws, but remain wary of the two-sided nature of its power. That's enough homework for now.

Hmmm. I was a student of Schneck's in Catholic's political theory program. He's not necessarily wrong about Catholic Social Teaching, but that would presuppose a single interpretation of it. Subsidiarity does not play friendly with partisanship. Both conservatives and liberals are going to feel a bit uncomfortable with what it requires. Same goes for the Dutch protestant version, sphere sovereignty (a la Abraham Kuyper). If you're already committed to one ideology (left or right) you're going to read the tradition as leaning one way or the other. In truth, it cuts down the middle. But in a two-party nation like the US, the pressure to fall on one side of the divide or the other is too strong.

damikesc said... "BTW, has Ryan released a tax form lately? I just wondered how much his charitable deduction was."

Would it matter?

You're on board with noted skinflint Biden and long-term charitable non-entities the Obamas (who only started giving to charity very recently, in spite of having a lot of money

Why shouldn't we know about Ryan's charitable contributions, since his philosophy is apparently to turn all social support programs over to the more charitable of heart. I want to see how much of a hypocrite or not he is.

And I don't know just whom you're speaking to, damikesc, because you quote three different people. But as to this quote, it ain't me.

How about you? What's your percentage of charitable giving? Or do you have no moral compass?

Our Lord was more than happy to have folks pay his way throughout the Gospels--how would they have done so, if they'd given it all away?

The story of the rich man and Lazarus wasn't about how the rich man ought to have given it all away--if he had, then all you do is switch places--but that he did absolutely nothing for Lazarus, who the parable makes clear, the rich man was aware of. His neglect was conscious.

The Acts of the Apostles describes folks who choose to give their property to the Church, and those who lied (Ananias and Sapphira) are punished; but it doesn't say everyone gave up their property.

Why do you assume that the Lord's advice to that man means what you think it does? I.e., that Jesus wanted everyone to give away everything to the poor. It doesn't say that, so why do you infer that?

“Why do you assume that the Lord's advice to that man means what you think it does? I.e., that Jesus wanted everyone to give away everything to the poor. It doesn't say that, so why do you infer that?”

Father,

From my understanding of the teachings of Christ, He did not seem too concerned with material wealth, i.e. “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?”

What occupation did Christ do to sustain Himself, i.e. food, clothing, shelter, etc, while ministering to the people?

The Gospels don't answer all the questions about our Lord's personal economy--perhaps because the Gospel writers think we should read the Gospels to learn other things.

But I would point out the Gospels tell us his enjoyment of the good life was contrasted with John the Baptist's abstemiousness.

Back to my question. Defend your exegesis of the passage you brought up. Any exegete of Scripture is expected to support his interpretation. That is customary. Defend yours. It's not my job to disprove it, it's your job to support it.

I’m not changing the question. You asked why I think that Jesus wanted everyone to give away everything to the poor. When the rich man responded that he always kept the commandments, Christ responded “One thing you lack. Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Don’t you think that was an example for all Christians to follow to be rewarded in heaven?

OK, I take it you don't want to justify your exegesis of the passage, so we'll forget about that.

Now to your question, did our Lord pursue material wealth? I don't know. There are a lot of things about his life on earth that are not told to us. Presumably at some point in his life he worked; perhaps as a carpenter, perhaps as a shepherd, who knows?

If, as is widely supposed, his foster father Joseph died at some point, and--if as Catholic Tradition holds, he had no siblings--then it seems very possible his mother would have needed some support and it's unthinkable our Lord would not have provided it. If so, he worked.

We really only know about a small sliver of his life on earth. And even then, we don't know if he worked and earned any income in those months and years that the Gospels concern themselves with.

"Jesus looked at him and loved him. 'One thing you lack, he said. 'Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.' "

A number of Mormon Apostles have suggested that in this story, Christ very well may have been issuing a call to the Apostleship, which the otherwise very good man turned down because he just couldn't give up his first love - money.

Why does my interpretation of a Christ’s words have to do with my question? He seems to be pretty clear in His teachings. He used simple passages and parables to communicate His message to the common people.

You don’t know if Christ did or did not purse material wealth? Really, based on His teachings?

Do you think that if we, in the Christian country, truly followed the words of Christ that we would see the economic disparity we have or the greed we saw on Wall Street?

"A number of Mormon Apostles have suggested that in this story, Christ very well may have been issuing a call to the Apostleship, which the otherwise very good man turned down because he just couldn't give up his first love - money."

You asked me a question about the Lord's teaching, I answered it. You didn't like my answer, and you cited Mark 10 to rebut my answer, and made a claim about what that passage means.

When you did that, you offered exegesis. Three times I asked you to support your exegesis, and you have declined to do so.

If what you want is to know how Mark 10 is usually interpreted, I told you. If you think it should be interpreted differently, feel free to support your belief with the sort of argumentation that makes for good exegesis.

And if you prefer to say, "well it's what I think," that's fine. And we'll leave it there.

You asked why I think that Jesus wanted everyone to give away everything to the poor.

You really think that is what He said and what He meant?

If EVERYONE gave away EVERYTHING, then the whole world would be standing naked and starving around a big pile of stuff.

In no sense did Jesus ever suggest that personal ownership of property was wrong. He owned things Himself -- not many material things, but He and the Apostles did own things.

Rather, what He was concerned about was proper usage of goods that we possess, to be proper stewards of creation.

Do you really think that Jesus would have gone up to an employer and said that he should give all his money away rather than hire workers to do a job and pay them wages? Indeed, many of the parables involve workers being paid a wage.

There is more than one way to "give away" your wealth to the poor. One way is to hire them as employees. Another is to make your money available to others to use as capital for the creation of job-creating businesses.

Jesus never asked everyone to give everything away. Even St. Francis eventually put some clothes back on.

As for Father Fox: he has given away his entire life -- what more do you want?

I see no problem in our Lord recommending renunciation of wealth only to some. Only some people need to avoid alcohol, because they love it too much. Same with anything.

Also, I said before I have no idea about the Lord's personal economy. But I know he had to eat; and he had a mother who may have needed his support. What is so awful about supposing our Lord worked and earned money at some point in his life?

But of course, when our Lord traveled in his ministry, the Gospels tell us he did rely on the generosity of others. And, in the end, he was indeed poor. So, in that sense, he did do what he recommended to the man in that passage.

You do realize that renunciation of material things wasn't an idea Jesus thought up?

The Essenes, for example, tended to renounce the sorts of material things that other Jews tended to enjoy. One theory is that John the Baptist was in that line of thought: so he went out into the desert and lived off locusts and honey.

If you are going to make yourself judge of what is Christian, it absolutely is germane.

But the fact is -- based on what you have written before in this little game you like to play of being clueless and not understanding what people are saying and you simply repeating the same things over and over, often with an anti-Catholic flavor to it -- you are not a Christian. You are not even well-versed in Christian thought.

Were you acting in good faith, if you had a sincere desire for authentic dialogue, a real exchange of thought and ideas, it might be fruitful to engage with you. But you have, on every occasion I've seen you here, always been disingenuous.

Sadly, there is something that does apply in this situation. And it is a tragic thing. And maybe it can be different when you are more willing to act in good faith. But for now, the only thing to do is to shake the dust from our sandals and bid you a good day.

I think an awful lot of Christians try very hard to follow the Lord's teachings, but if you look for those who don't, you will find them. And to the extent it's hard to follow Christ ("Be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect"), then it's no trick finding examples of failures to live up to his teachings.

But really, you can't find evidence of people following the teachings of Christ? Really?

Well, I actually believe that Obama is trying to be a good Christian by attempting to implement healthcare reform to help more Americans. And yet, he has been called everything under the sun by many on the right who I presume are Christians.

I think Mr. Obama is doing what he thinks is best. I do not share his vision.

You like to ask questions, which is fine, but fair is fair. You might answer one once in a while.

I ask again: you really can't find evidence of people trying to live the teachings of Christ? You never heard of Mother Theresa? You never heard of folks forgiving people who commit crimes against them? You never heard of soup kitchens and Salvation Army and all the rest?

Sorry, but your questions seem pretty insincere. I've been around, I know a game of "bait the Christian."

36fsfiend is not concerned with Christ's teachings here. He/she is mainly concerned with identifying and amplifying the slighest discrepancy between what he/she perceives are Christian teachings and how Christians actually behave.

36fsfiend is not all concerned with the behavior of the wholly irreligious--only those who hew most closely to Christian teachings. 36fsfiend may believe that his/her purpose here is to sheppard people back into more adherent positions, but I'm afraid his/her purpose is to drive a wedge deeper between the faithful and their faith. I suspect a political agenda motivates him/her--perhaps related to perceived persecution on his/her part.

If 36fsfiend were genuine about caring for religious perfidy, he/she would be attacking the grossest violators of law in the name of faith--not the other way around.

Well, I actually believe that Obama is trying to be a good Christian by attempting to implement healthcare reform to help more Americans. And yet, he has been called everything under the sun by many on the right who I presume are Christians.

And he just keeps on with his dance, going around and around, acting clueless and playing the game of pretending that the various issues have not been addressed and answer many times over.

Any way, for anyone who does have a good faith interest in knowing what the Church has said on this passage --

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.'" He replied and said to him, "Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth." Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, "You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." At that statement his face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions. (Mk 10:17-22)

36fsfiend wrote: Well, I actually believe that Obama is trying to be a good Christian by attempting to implement healthcare reform to help more Americans.

I actually wondered the same thing after reading a 100-year old Christian eulogy about the Titanic. My thought, which I did not expand on, is here: link (near the very end).

The directive of the strong to help the weak is a Christian impulse--perhaps not uniquely so (and I am not an expert)--and will remain so. However, in the past, we have relied on self-suffiency and charity (a great deal of the latter was religiously motivated)to funish healthcare. Neglect and lack of healthcare are growing, not coincidently with the waning of self-suffiency and charity as virtues. You are saying or implying that they have failed and need to be superceded by Obamacare.

No doubt. It's just hard to pin it on any particular group of players in the whole ensemble: doctors, nurses unions, insurance companies, outrageous malpractice insurance premiums, unreasonable patient expectations, freeriders. But inflating a currency to grow the entire thing is hardly a solution.

We have at least one clear description of the failure of Communism under optimal conditions. I refer, of course, to the Book of Acts, 4:32 - 5:11, Ananias and Sephira. NewLiving translation.

1. There is no doubt that they are practicing the economic system of communism:"All the believers were of one heart and mind, and they felt that what they owned was not their own; they shared everything they had...There was no poverty among them, because people who owned land or houses sold them, and brought the money to the apostles to give to others in need." From each according to his means, to each according to his need --- Marx would have been proud to call them brother.

2. They had as close to an incorruptible body of rulers as possible, who were proving their uprightness with miracles every day.

3. And they had pretty close to the ultimate Auditor; when Ananais and Sephira try to cheat the system, Peter knows about it instantly, and the punishment is swift and sure: the cheaters are struck dead on the spot.

And yet there were still cheaters, the apostles couldn't hold it together for very long, and none of the other churches outside Jerusalem seem to have even tried it. If the 12 Apostles backed up by God couldn't make communism work, how in the h*ll would any lesser mortals have a shot??

Well, Dante, that was a weird statement. It had no relationship to the quote that I can see.

My point in this thread is that if Ryan intends us to follow his philosophy, then the logical conclusion is that all social support funding should come from charitable giving. So for those who merely repeat their plaints, I ask, what are you doing to care for "the least of these?" Ryan expects you to step up.

And by the way, Fr Fox if Ryan expects me to follow a plan that he is advocating, I want to see how he lives up to it. He's a public figure and a politician, and it's a fair question. Would you rather have me use a metaphor--is he a Pharisee of the type Jesus condemned or not? And the same question of those who want to use a public forum to complain about government spending on social programs: have you stepped up to the plate or not?

I wonder how many of those doctors who took an oath to help the sick but still commit that fraud claim to be Christian?

What does that have to do with anything but your own animosity towards Christianity? Christianity didn't cause the greed. You (we all) want such fraud to stop. Pointing out hypocrisy does nothing to motivate or change that behavoir. It's like adultery--nothing has changed in human hearts--it's just become unfashionable to stigmatize people.

You sound like a big proponent of stigmatization. I wonder how far you'd go with that unless you are personally immune to sin.

Who do you think, as a Christian, Christ would advocate for, the military or the agencies helping people to receive affordable healthcare?

It's hard to imagine (based on what I recall of scripture) Christ militating against foreign nations. He would have left that to Caesar. He may have ministered to the latter, but never preached that Ceasar should do so.

You seem unaware of how deeply the the non-scriptural teaching "The Lord helps those who helps themselves" runs in this country. Why is that? Did you never hear that growing up?

Well, Caesar never claimed the Roma Empire was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

As far as the teaching "The Lord helps those who helps themselves", yes, I have heard of it.

But, I also believe in what our first Republican president stated that the government should do for the people what the people cannot collective do for themselves. Hence, defense, national transportation systems, the weather service, the Coast Guard and a system to help ensure affordable healthcare.

The biggest problem we have is that most Americans don't consider SS and Medicare to be charity--they think they've earned it with their contributions, and they'll punish anyone who tries to reduce benefits. But most recipients get a lot more out than they put in, even with interest, and the few that die early or are run over by a bus get little or nothing back.

our first Republican president stated that the government should do for the people what the people cannot collective[ly] do for themselvesDon't you mean "individually"--I thought Government was the collective.

So he fought a war in which >600,000 Americans died. Great healthcare system too--all government run.

You apparently never learned about Adam Smith's Invisible Hand: the profit motive makes people serve others better and more efficiently than forcing them to would, plus the Hand is about to grab your shorts and yank.

The actual quote is: “That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.”

Regarding your comment about healthcare, you know, back in the 1950s if you had a massive heart attack you were probably good for dead. Pay the couple of grand for the funeral service and be done with it. I had an aunt just this past week who had a major heart attack. She had to have a triple by-pass performed. The procedure will cost tens of thousands of dollars. Fortunately, she was covered by my uncle’s insurance, a former union man who worked on the railroad.

We need to move into the 21st century regarding this whole healthcare issue.

And I don’t agree that the healthcare market is like the broccoli market.

This endless stalking by 36fsfiend (now there's a clue in the avatar name!) has been quite amusing. I am reminded of Screwtapes' advice to Wormwood:

...if the patient knows that...the man [in the next pew] with squeaky boots is a miser and extortioner--then your task is so much the easier. All you then have to do is keep out of his mind the question "If I, being what I am, can consider that I am in some sense a Christian, why should the different vices of those people in the next pew prove that their religion is mere hypocrisy and convention? You may ask whether it is possible to keep such an obvious thought from occurring even to a human mind. It is, Wormwood, it is! Handle him properly and it simply won't come into his head." The Screwtape Letters, C.S.Lewis.

And there's always reliable Proverbs:

"When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, " Prov. 29:9.

What do you mean in regards to forcing health care workers to take a 6th century vow of poverty?

Again, initially I was asking about Christians and their behavior in relation to the teachings of Christ.

To me, if your are going to be a true Christian,you must be prepared to love your enemy and if he should be intent on taking your life be prepared to forgive him as Christ did to those who crucified him.

Since it doesn’t appear to me that many who claim to be Christian are actually prepared to live that life (God and Guns for example), then lets drop the labels and actually attack the problems facing this country.

Our healthcare system is broken. I agree with the position that the healthcare market is unique in that virtually all will need and obtain healthcare at some point but we often cannot predict when or in what ways we will need it. And for most of us, direct payment for healthcare services is prohibitively expensive. Yet not obtaining needed medical care can be the difference between life and death.

This explain why, unlike other markets, insurance is the primary means of payment. It also explain why Congress has required that individuals be given emergency care without regard to their ability to pay. Consequently, unlike other markets, uninsured individuals who are unable to pay directly shift the cost to others. i.e., health care providers, the government, individuals with insurance and taxpayers.

If healthcare was truly a free market system with choice, no one would choose to get sick or injured. The healthcare market and heath insurance market would disappear for lack of demand.